Kitchen ring main cable size

[ban-all-sheds]

As to one person signing, there is nothing to stop using electricians mates, and apprentices as well as fully qualified electricians, all it needs is for the person signing the paperwork to be in charge of the work.

But an electrician who turns up to a house where he has never met or spoken to the unqualified owner who presents him with work he has already carried out is NOT in charge of it.

An electrician in a formal relationship with mates and apprentices is a very different situation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Anyway, Bernard, since you like to refuse to answer questions when you realise that the answer will be inconvenient for you, and like instead to write falsehoods about why you won't answer, here's some more pleasure for you:

A team of four electricians re-wire a house. Which one signs the document, or does each one sign for the work they did as an individual meaning there are four certificates for installation and a possible fifth for the design work.

These 4 electricians who (for there to be a useful analogy) must not know each other, must not work for the same company, must not be subcontracted by the same company, and must never have met or discussed anything between themselves until after they have finished their work (for that is the analogous situation to a DIYer getting an electrician in after he has done the design and the construction) - how are they doing this rewire?

How did they come to be there? Did they each individually and coincidentally roll up by chance one morning and start gratuitously rewiring part of a house?

Are they making their own decisions, as they go along, about what circuits they are going to install, what accessories they will use, where they will put them, and so on?

Or is your scenario not relevant to that of an unqualified DIYer asking an electrician who had had no input whatsoever to say "yes, I was responsible for the design and the construction of that", because in your scenario there would be someone in charge, someone who would have given these electricians specifications to work to?

 

[ericmark]

But an electrician who turns up to a house where he has never met or spoken to the unqualified owner who presents him with work he has already carried out is NOT in charge of it.

An electrician in a formal relationship with mates and apprentices is a very different situation.

You are correct in a way, but there is no reason why an electrician should not tell a home owner stick up trunking and wire it up, I will come and look at if and if OK sign it off, in exactly the same way as he tells the electricians mate to go to the house and do the same thing.

When it all goes wrong is where the electrician trusts the mate or home owner to do something which he can't latter verify was done, plug in the tester and write down the result clearly caused the electrician a problem in this case, the mate could not it seems write down what the meter said, he fudged up some results, and that was some one he had known for some time.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You are correct in a way, but there is no reason why an electrician should not tell a home owner stick up trunking and wire it up, I will come and look at if and if OK sign it off, in exactly the same way as he tells the electricians mate to go to the house and do the same thing.

But that requires the electrician to be engaged first. It requires him to be consulted before work starts.

You know, as in:

Then ask him [what cable to use].

And ask him about the route, and the installation method.

And agree with him how much of the work he is happy for you to do.

 

[SimonH2]

Oh yes, there is also the assumption that this is notifiable work. Just to throw another variable into the mix

 

[SimonH2]

Do you care about the fact that the Building Regulations do not use the term "responsible for", but instead use variations of "carrying out"?

Try reading the Building Regulations, for once in your life.

I have, more than once. My interpretation of what they say appears to differ from your interpretation.

The person who carries out the work is required to notify the local authority. That he may use an administrative process put in place for him by the trade body to whom he pays a fee to provide him with various services is irrelevant, he is still certifying the correctness of the work which he carried out.

Citation for definition of "person carrying out" in relation to the building regs ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh yes, there is also the assumption that this is notifiable work. Just to throw another variable into the mix

It's not an assumption:

Hello i need to run a new kitchen ring main

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have, more than once. My interpretation of what they say appears to differ from your interpretation.

I'm not "interpreting" anything - I am simply reading what they clearly say.

Try reading them again, only this time substitute a meaning other than the person who carries out the work for "the person carrying out the work". You could try building owner, or householder, or person who is paying for the work, or person who ordered the work done - there are all sorts of alternatives.

And every single one results in requirements which are barking mad.

Why you have decided to become the latest in a long list of people who are driven to "interpret" the regulations because they simply will not accept the obvious meaning of everyday words and phrases (a meaning, BTW, which does not result in requirements which are barking mad), I have no idea.

 

[SimonH2]

It's not an assumption:

Of all the people, I would have thought you would have understood the regs. Clearly not

No, I'm not going to explain it to you - I have more productive things to do.

I'm not "interpreting" anything - I am simply reading what they clearly say.

Try reading them again, only this time substitute a meaning other than the person who carries out the work for "the person carrying out the work". You could try building owner, or householder, or person who is paying for the work, or person who ordered the work done - there are all sorts of alternatives.

And every single one results in requirements which are barking mad.

Please cite or write a definition. As we all know, the regs don't work with "everyday terms" in many cases - and this is one of them.

Example:
A person decides to have an extension built. He's lucky to know a few mates who will help him out for beer tokens and conveniently have access to useful tools and equipment - none of them are members of approved schemes (not that this matters). Actually, it's good that he has these mates, as he's not very well and can't do much himself.
So he notifies for building regs for the whole project and then his mates get to work while he does what he can and keeps the kettle going.

1st mate comes with his mini digger and digs out the trenches for the footings - and the BC guy has a quick look and declares them deep enough etc. Who "carries out" the digging work ? Who notified the work ?
Then 1st mate along with some others mix and pour some concrete in the trenches. Who "carried out" the work ? Who notified it ?

Now 2nd mate is a bit of a bricky, not his full time job, but he's not too bad at it, and he starts building the walls. Who is carrying out the work ? Who notified it ?

And so we go on and on - the person with the tools in his hand is by your definition obviously the one and only person who "carries out" the work, yet quite legitimately is not the one responsible for and doing the notification - because it would be barking mad to insist that each different stage OF ONE PROJECT was separately notified to BC.

The regs make complete sense if the definition of "person carrying out the work" is along the lines of "the person commissioning the work, or where appropriate, his nominated contractor". It covers small jobs where the nominated contractor is a member of a nominated scheme and notified via that scheme. It covers larger projects where the project is notified by the owner/his architect/etc and different contractors do different stages of the work.

If we stick with "everyday language", it's quite common for people to talk in terms of "someone is doing something" when in fact the "someone" is not the person with the tools in their hand, but the "someone" commissioning the work from others who are actually doing it. Locally, "Highways England" have just built a new road scheme - that's what people talk about (using different variations names to refer to HE). In fact, HE didn't do it, they commissioned the work - contractors (multiple ones) actually did the work.

Without going and looking, I suspect we won't need to go too far back to find threads where someone is asking about electrics in an extension - and you've replied along the lines of "what did you say when you applied for building regs ?" in the context of the electrical works being just one part of a project which has been notified as a whole. So clearly then you understand the concept of the person commissioning the works being the person who notifies the overall project.
But here you are again, arguing that black is white because you can't accept something that doesn't fit with your personal definition du jour.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.

 

[Mottie]

I now know why it is damn near on impossible to get a qualified and experienced electrician on site these days. It's because you are all on here nit-picking and arguing over the correct phrasing and determination of words!

 

[bernardgreen]

It's because you are all on here nit-picking

Only those who can use a keyboard or tap on a smart phone screen are here, all the others will be available for work.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of all the people, I would have thought you would have understood the regs. Clearly not

No, I'm not going to explain it to you - I have more productive things to do.

Oh look - another member of the "I'll give a false reason for not being willing to answer a question" club started by Bernard.

Please cite or write a definition. As we all know, the regs don't work with "everyday terms" in many cases - and this is one of them.

I can't cite a definition, because there isn't one.

And if there isn't a definition, which in effect would say "In these regulations the term 'person carrying out the work' means....", then the term can only mean what it actually means in everyday English.

Nothing else makes any sense, unless you think that it makes sense for everybody to decide for themselves what terms mean, and then carry on as if that it what the regulations actually say.

I guess you do think that, since you have asked me to write a definition.

Utterly deranged.

What is it with some people? Why are they driven to "interpret" the regulations because they simply will not accept the obvious meaning of everyday words and phrases? What is wrong with them, such that they look at a phrase with an obvious everyday meaning, which has not had that meaning overridden by a definition, and think "I don't like that obvious everyday meaning, thank god it's not been otherwise defined, because that allows me to invent my own meaning with which I am happier?"

Example:
A person decides to have an extension built. He's lucky to know a few mates who will help him out for beer tokens and conveniently have access to useful tools and equipment - none of them are members of approved schemes (not that this matters). Actually, it's good that he has these mates, as he's not very well and can't do much himself.
So he notifies for building regs for the whole project and then his mates get to work while he does what he can and keeps the kettle going.

1st mate comes with his mini digger and digs out the trenches for the footings - and the BC guy has a quick look and declares them deep enough etc. Who "carries out" the digging work ? Who notified the work ?
Then 1st mate along with some others mix and pour some concrete in the trenches. Who "carried out" the work ? Who notified it ?

Now 2nd mate is a bit of a bricky, not his full time job, but he's not too bad at it, and he starts building the walls. Who is carrying out the work ? Who notified it ?

The people who carried out the work carried out the work. That's the way that verbs work.

And there's no reason why their responsibility to notify cannot be discharged via their customer.

The regs make complete sense if the definition of "person carrying out the work" is along the lines of "the person commissioning the work, or where appropriate, his nominated contractor".

But

it

isn't.

There are people, and you are one, who seem to think that if reality is not how they wish it were, then all they have to do is to keep pretending that it's how they want it to be and keep acting as if it were how they want it to be, and that will change reality.

It won't.

The definition is not along the lines of "the person commissioning the work, or where appropriate, his nominated contractor", and you deciding that that is what it should be will not make it so.

If we stick with "everyday language", it's quite common for people to talk in terms of "someone is doing something" when in fact the "someone" is not the person with the tools in their hand, but the "someone" commissioning the work from others who are actually doing it.

Notice of commencement and completion of certain stages of work

16. - (2) Subject to paragraph (8), a person commissioning building work from others who are actually doing it shall not—

(a)cover up any excavation for a foundation, any foundation, any damp-proof course or any concrete or other material laid over a site; or.
(b)cover up in any way any drain or sewer to which these Regulations apply, unless that person has given the local authority notice of intention to commence that work, and at least one day has elapsed since the end of the day on which the notice was given..​

CO2 emission rate calculations

27. —(1) This regulation applies where a building is erected and regulation 26 applies.

(2) Not later than the day before the work starts, the person commissioning building work from others who are actually doing shall give the local authority a notice which specifies—

(a)the target CO2 emission rate for the building,.
(b)the calculated CO2 emission rate for the building as designed, and.
(c)a list of specifications to which the building is to be constructed..
​

(3) Not later than five days after the work has been completed, the person carrying out the work shall give the local authority—

(a)a notice which specifies—.

(i)the target CO2 emission rate for the building,.
(ii)the calculated CO2 emission rate for the building as constructed, and.
(iii)whether the building has been constructed in accordance with the list of specifications referred to in paragraph (2)(c), and if not a list of any changes to those specifications; or.​

(b)a certificate of the sort referred to in paragraph (4) accompanied by the information referred to in sub-paragraph (a)..​

Poor old householder has got to learn an awful lot of stuff these days before he can get the builders in, it seems.

Still - at least he shouldn't get into any arguments when he also gives an energy performance certificate...



... to himself ...


Energy performance certificates

29. — mechanical ventilation..
(2) The person commissioning building work from others who are actually doing shall—

(a)give an energy performance certificate for the building to the owner of the building;


And just think of how much money all these electricians, plumbers, window installers etc have thrown away over the years taking out totally unnecessary membership of various Competent Person schemes, because it's the householder who has to be a member, not them:


Provisions applicable to self-certification schemes

20. —(1) This regulation applies to the extent that the building work consists only of work of a type described in column 1 of the Table in Schedule 3 and the work is commissioned by a person who is described in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Table in respect of that type of work.

And there he goes again, giving a certificate to himself...

(3) Where this regulation applies, the person commissioning building work from others who are actually doing shall, not more than 30 days after the completion of the work—

(a)give to the occupier a copy of the certificate referred to in paragraph (2);

But here you are again, arguing that black is white because you can't accept something that doesn't fit with your personal definition du jour.

It is not I who is trying to pretend that a term with a clear everyday meaning means something other than that because it doesn't fit with their personal definition.

Have you ever read the Guide to the Building Regulations? Presuming that you accept that the requirement to notify is a building regulation, then the information on who is responsible for complying with the regulations must apply to that as well.

If you think that the Building Regulations should define the term as "the person commissioning the work, or where appropriate, his nominated contractor" then lobby the appropriate people to get it change.

You cannot bring about the change by pretending that it has already happened and acting accordingly.

Unless and until it is changed it remains as it is, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.

 

[securespark]

Only those who can use a keyboard or tap on a smart phone screen are here, all the others will be available for work.

Inbetween sly posts...

 

[SimonH2]

I now know why it is damn near on impossible to get a qualified and experienced electrician on site these days. It's because you are all on here nit-picking and arguing over the correct phrasing and determination of words!

BAS isn't a sparky. Make of it what you will as to why he's the way he is over electrical work that he doesn't do.
I'm not a sparky either, but I bet I do a lot more installation work professionally than he does - and that has included what would be notifiable in a domestic environment.

Hello i need to run a new kitchen ring main ...

yes, I read those words, NO NEED TO SHOUT ! I take it you are admitting you cannot see how that might not be notifiable work then it's really not that hard - oh yes, and a second option has also come to mind so now there's two completely separate ways for you to think of.